Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3604 of 2003 Revisionist :- Virendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2003, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, in Case No. M-118 of 2003 (Smt. Ramwati vs. Virendra Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 1000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 namely Ramwati.
Vide order dated 28.11.2003, this court has directed for payment of Rs. 500/- per month till the next date of listing. It appears that this revision is still awaiting admission.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that opposite party no. 2, the wife of revisionist gave an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating that she is legally married wife of revisionist Virendra Singh. After marriage, when she joined the matrimonial home, she came to know that her husband has illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) who is her elder sister. Therefore, her husband and his family members started committing maar-peet and harassing her on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. They were demanding colour television and Rs. 5000/- cash. The wife any how continued living in the house of her husband. Her father could not give colour television and cash due to poverty, hence, the husband and his family members used to beat her and after six months, she was expelled from her matrimonial home with the threat that if she would return, she would be turn dead by them. She came back to her parents' home and disclose all the facts. Her parents tried to convince her husband and his family members but they did not change. The wife is totally dependent on her parents, having no income to maintain herself, whereas, the husband has a good earning by ancestral agriculture and the business of milk and he is earning Rs. 5000/- per month. He has refused to maintain her and has not provided any maintenance.
It appears that the revisionist-husband has disputed the fact of marriage and has alleged that no marriage took place between them and the applicant-wufe is simply exploiting him by alleging herself to be his wife. The demand of dowry was also denied and it was also alleged that there is no income of the husband.
Evidence was given from both the sides and after discussing the same, the learned Magistrate found that the marriage between the two was established. This fact was also admitted that the applicant-wife was living with her parents and husband was not providing any maintenance to her and after finding that the applicant-wife unable to maintain herself having no income, the learned trial court has awarded her the maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month by the impugned order. By denying the fact of marriage, it has been submitted that the husband cannot be compelled to maintain the applicant-wife, but this argument looses its force in view of conclusive finding recorded by the trial court on the point that both are husband and wife.
It is pertinent to mention here that the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a proceeding of that nature in which the fact of marriage would be examined to the tilt. Even then after elaborating all the evidences available on record, the learned trial court has given the finding with regard to marriage of both the parties and in revision, this finding cannot be disturbed.
The revisionist-husband himself may have other legal remedies, if he feels that both are not married. But in revision, this fact cannot be re-examined. The maintenance amount appears to be in the lower side by which the revisionist-husband could not be supposed to be aggrieved.
In view of above, I do not find any irregularity or illegality or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed at the admission stage.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 sailesh